SRC Winter Symposium Socio-Cultural Dimensions of the
Changes in the Slavic-Eurasian World ( English
/ Japanese )

The Role of
Historiography in the
Abkhazo-Georgian Conflict

Seiichi Kitagawa
(Hirosaki University)

Copyright (c) 1996 by the Slavic Research Center( English / Japanese
) All rights reserved.

Theoretical setting

Like many other ethnic conflicts, the Abkhazo-Georgian issue has
many causes and backgound problems. Every specialist in the various
fields of social sciences can explain one or the other side of this
conflict with an individnal method. In my opinion, the role of
historiography is particularly important in explaining the many ethnic
issuses of the present Caucasia. Of course these conflicts have their
own history of development. But, I mean here, that the historiography
itself is one of the main factors of the conflicts among, other causes
such as sociological, economic, regional, religious, tribal and
political view points.

It is very easy to understand how historical literatures without
scientific evidence would agitate nationalistic minded people. As in
the cases of Japan-Chinese or Japan-Korean historical issues, the
articleof the late Prof. Inqolova about the origin of the Azkhazians of
Azkhazia had a crucial influence on Georgian political activists and
provoked anger among the Abkhazians. The protest and demonstration
against the publication of this unscientific article by a Georgian
newspaper became the direct cause of the bloody conflict of Sukhumi in
1989. As Japanese schoolbooks of history became the cause of anger
among Chinese, Korean and other nations of Asia, so the unpublished
article of this philologue did so also among the Abkahzians.

In the former Soviet Union, all publications were censored
elaborately beforehand and in theory any possibility to cause
displeasure among the brothers of Soviet nations could not be found in
schoolbooks, popular histories and periodicals. Future harmony among
theSoviet nations was considered more important than facts of the past.

Scientific literature was less censored than popular literature, but
every political unit of a titled nation had its own state
historiography. In Caucasia, the first ethnic issues started in the
form of academic discussions on one or the other problem of the
historical pasts, among historians, academicians, doctors and doctoral
candidates of the neighbouring political units of republics, autonomous
republics and autonomous provinces.

First, they had to arrange their research within the limits of
official historiography, which demanded the sovereignty, or at least
the autonomy of the enclaves of titled politico-administrative units.
Second, the status and the boundary of a titled nation had been
determined by historical right and the present distribution of
inhabitants. The density and growth of a nation could be controlled by
population policy and historical right by finding more proof of
"indigenousness" of the titled nation.

It is now well-known that the boundaries of the Soviet national
unitswere often changed by the Moscow government at least in the
Caucasus or else change was requested by people who were dissatisfied
with the existing border. Any new study which exceeded the limit or
undermined the geographical structure of the historiography of
neighboring republics was understood as an infringement on the neighbor
and the author was criticized as a disturberof socialistic order.

The present frontiers of titled units are not always in accord with
the past activities of the Soviet nationalities. Until the korenization
policy, they could share their historical past; but after that they had
to divide everything among themselves. A cultural or political activist
of the past who has internatonal stature, must also be recognized as a
national leader by the moderndry residents living in their own national
enclave, although any sense of nationality meant nothing at the time of
the leader.

The institution of titled nation came from political attitudes
toward ethnocracy, and ethnocracy did not come along with the real
democracy. Superiority of a titled nation over other national
minorities within their titled national territory was not ensured by
theSoviet constitutions, but in reality important posts of any official
organizations were given to the members of that titled nationality. To
be a member of a titled nation within its border is to have a better
chance of success in life. So, to judge the "indigeniousness" of a
nation in its titled enclave is not only of a matter of scientific fact
or national pride, but also of material interest. Quiet discussions
among scholars were followed by disputes between nationalists and then
civil wars. We can find examples of this in the conflicts in the
Mountainous Karabakh and clashes between Lezghi and Avar activists and
the Azerbaijani police and so on. The cause of the Abkhazo-Georgian
conflict is one of these cases.

METHODOLOGICAL PREVIEW:
MAIN SUBJECTS AND CLAIMS OF THE ABKHAZO-GEORGIAN CONFLICT IN THE
SCHOLARLY LITERATNRE

Some of the most important items of historical disputes between two
nations are as follows.

6) Abkhazian policy of Soviet Georgia and the growth of the Georgian
immigrants in Abkahzia.

All of these items are subjects of scholarly discussions.

ABOUT THE ANCIENT INHABITANTS OF THE PRESENT ABKHZAIA: A CASE
STUDY

The first known state of Georgia is Colchis, the land of the Golden
Fleece. In all Georgian literature on histroy Colchis is named Egrisi,
of which descendants are claimed to be Megrelians (an ethinic group of
western Georgia). Howere, based on some linguistic data, western as
well as Abkhazian philologues claim that the inhabitants of Colchis
were Abkahzians. The half brother of Media Apsyrtos (old Babilonian
'absu' (the abyss), or an Old Abkhazian */a-psw-art- (the
Abkhaz-pronoun suffix-pronoun) bears the Abkhazian name by the
explanation John Colarusso. Thismeans natives of the eastern coast of
the Black Sea were Abkhazians and the Georgians, who live there now,
were newcomers. So, the present Abkhazians have the right of titled
nation including the demand for sovereignty and independence from
Goergia. After Colchis, Lazica occupied the ancientterritory of Colchis
as a successor state, which was inhabited by Megrelians in the Georgian
view or Abkhazians in the Abkhazian view. The Lazs people who live in
Turkish Lazistan now, speak a language very akin toMegrelian, so one
can determine the main body of Lazicas were Georgians.

If the inhabitants of the kingdom of Lazica were Georgians, where
were the present Abkhazians' ancestors at that time? From the first or
second century, Greek writers wrote about the Apsilae and the Abasgoi.
There are some opinions about their origin and identity. Maybe they
were indigenous to Abkhazia or the whole of Western Georgia, and until
that time had been simply called Colchians or Lazicas together with
other tribes and ethnic groups of Western Georgia. Or else they were
newcomers from the Northern Caucasus, during these centuries. They may
have had relations with the present Svans (an ethinc group among
Georgians), or Adyge-Abkhzians. If they were native Adyge-Abkhazians,
present day Abkhazians, as the decendants of indigenous inhabitants,
have the perfect right of titled nation. One typical Abkhazian opinion
is that not only the Abasgoi but also the Apsilae belonged to the
Abkhazians. One of the most extreme opinions of Georgians is that both
of these groupes were Georgians, and the present Abkhazians
penetratedthrough the Caucasian Mountains to Azkhazia in the 17th
century; according to this opinion, the Abkhazians have no right to a
titled nation and or even to autonomy, which they currently enjoy.

In the 11th century B. C., the Assyrian inscriptions made reference
to the "Abeshela", a tribe which lived in the North Anatolian
mountains. Then, in a mediaval Georgian chronicle written by Juansher,
mentions a toponymy of "Apshileti" (or the land of Apshils). Some
scholars insist that Apshil is the missing link between the ancient
Abeshela and the classicApsils. Here we must take into account that V.
Ardzinba, chairman of the supreme soviet of Abkhazia, is a specialist
in the history and languages of ancient Anatolia. After the weakening
of the Lasica (in Georgian Egrisi) kingdom, in the 6th century the
Princedom of Abasgia became a direct vassal of the Byzantine Empire.
According to Prof. Mariam Lordikipanadze, the Abasgoi annexed the
"Apsilia north to the river Kodori" in the second century, and then
after the 6th century the "Apsilia proper" between the river Kodori and
the river Egrisitsqali (Ghalidzga). In the 730s the Arab general of
Murvan the Deaf invaded Western Georgia. Juansher wrote that the "city
of Tskhum of Apshileti and Abkhazia" was burnt by him. Tskhum was at
that time called the city of Apshileti, which in the 8th century was
incorporated into Abkhazia. So, according to the theory of some
scholors the Abkhazia Proper existed to the North of Tskhum (Sukhumi),
where the main body of the inhabitants became the ancestors of the
presentday Abkhazians. The Tskhum district of the Apsletia and the
Apsletia Proper, between the Kodor and Egrisitsqali, were inhabited by
theGeorgians. In this view, Tskhum has even a Georgian etimology. But,
according to an other opinion, the Apshletis were the ancestors of the
present day Abkhazians, who now call themselves the Apsuas, and the
Abasgoi were their nothern brothers who used a language very akin to
that of the Apshletis and came across the mountains. Therefore, the
present Abkhazians are indigenious to the central as well as the
northern part of Abkhazia.

CONCLUSION

One can find two key factors in the ethinc issues of the Caucasia.
One is the institution of titled nation and the second is the theory of
"indigenousness" of inhabitants. As long as the institution of titled
nation was prolonged within the borders settled in Soviet times, the
claim of inheritance by the inhabitants would continue. One of the
Russian solntions to the conflict, namely to make the Geogian refugees
go back to the Gali and Ochamchile regions under the protection of
international peacekeeping army, was harshly rejected by the Abkhazian
side, because this was the /iskonnyj/ territory of Abkhazia, although
these provinces were inhabited compactly and densely by the ethnic
Georgians before 1994. As for the Georgians, all Abkhazia except the
NorthWestern corner of the country is also the /iskonnyj/ territory of
Georgia. But, neither sides has an accurate memory of their ancient
ancestors. Abkhazians have no explanation as to why they are called
Abkhazians and their country is called Abkhazia, when they themseves
werecalled Apsua and their country Apsuni. Only historiography can
fulfil their desire for national satisfaction about the past. So,
historiographywanders between the policy of titled nation and the
theory of indigenousinhabitants. Before trying to solve the conflict we
must understand each side's national sentiment about history as well as
the material interest which comes from it. Then we must wait for a new
theory of the past which depends neither on the system of tilted nation
nor on the theory of "indigenousness".

SRC Winter Symposium Socio-Cultural
Dimensions of the
Changes in the Slavic-Eurasian World ( English
/ Japanese )

Copyright (c) 1996 by the Slavic Research Center( English / Japanese
) All rights reserved.